Carlos Fuentes
Carlos Fuentes
Good call! First of all, thanks for taking the time on this. Second, I partially disagree with you as the expectation is clear, but we are digging too much into...
`good-first-issue`?
👋 I wouldn't add this to the core as it can make users make wrong assumptions and noise while working with the framework and setting its routes. Rather this sounds...
I'd say that leaking the router as is can be pretty dangerous as it's easy to alter it and make `fastify` fail, causing issues to spawn within the project (unless...
The PR LGTM overall, but I'm over the fence with having the validation within core. This seems to have pretty specific use cases, and the harm of unexpected behaviour can...
> Should this be closed due to #5230 or do we want to keep it open for the plugin discussion? I believe we should keep it open for plugin discussion
Hmm, I think we are going down the rabbit hole; setting fmw aside to make the plugin fit the use case will be slightly more problematic than we thought. Have...
👋 I can confirm I can reproduce the issue, although I'm not sure if this was the expected intention of the original design. So far the error handling works as...
Kind of imagined that, specially as it was pretty specific. Should we document this behaviour? It's kind of "_implied_" that people should be outside `throw`ing everything that is not an...
I'm kind of over the fence, it seems like a good fit for a plugin, but also do not have a strong argument for not add it to core; what...